The spurious vs. dative problem
In this paper I bring new arguments against the morphological analysis of the Spurious Se Rule in Spanish (Bonet 1991, Nevins 2007, 2012, among others). I show that both the dative clitic le and the spurious clitic se differ syntactically. These facts strongly argue against the existence of a morphological rule (i.e. impoverishment) mapping the dative clitic into the spurious one, leaving its syntax unaffected.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Morphological SpuSe rule (Nevins 2007, 2012)
- 3.The spurious vs. dative problem
- 3.1Bare plurals
- 3.2The non-existence of ethical spurious se clitics
- 3.2.1The double object construction hypothesis
- 3.3Spurious ≠ dative
- 3.3.1Weak cross-over repairs
- 3.3.2Principle C effects with post-verbal subjects
- 3.4Binominal sendos in Spanish (Bosque 1992)
- 4.Spurious-se is just reflexive-se
- 4.1Vehicle change (Fiengo & May 1994)
- 5.Conclusion
-
Acknowledgments
-
Notes
-
References
References (30)
References
Alcaraz, Alejo. 2016. “The Obviation Agreement Effect”. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 10: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ 28, ed. by Ernestina Carilho, Alexandra Fiéis, Maria Lobo and Sandra Pereira, 1–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Béjar, Susana. 2003. Phi-syntax: A Theory of Agreement. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto.
Bonet, M. Eulàlia. 1991. Morphology after Syntax: Pronominal Clitics in Romance. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Bosque, Ignacio. 1992. “Anáforas distributivas: La gramática de sendos”. Miscellanea antverpiensia: Homenaje al vigesimo aniversario del Instituto de Estudios Hispanicos de la Universidad de Amberes: 59–92.
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. “Categories and Transformations”. The Minimalist Program, 219–394.
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. “Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework”. In Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, David Michaels and Juan Uriagereka, 89–155. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Demonte, Violeta. 1995. “Dative Alternation in Spanish”. International Journal of Latin and Romance Linguistics 7 (1): 5–30.
den Dikken, Marcel. 1995. “Binding, Expletives and Levels”. Linguistic Inquiry 26: 347–354.
Embick, David and Rolf Noyer. 2001. “Movement Operations after Syntax”. Linguistic Inquiry 32 (4): 555–595.
Embick, David and Rolf Noyer. 2007. “Distributed Morphology and the Syntax/Morphology Interface”. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, ed. by Gillian Ramchand and Charles Reiss, 289–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. “Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection”, In The View from Building 20, ed. by Ken Hale and Samuel J. Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Fernández Soriano, Olga. 1989. “Strong Pronouns in Null-subject Languages and the Avoid Pronoun Principle”. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 11: 228–239.
Fiengo, Robert, and Robert May. 1994. Indices and Identity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1982. Topics in Romance Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.
Lasnik, Howard. 1999. “On Feature Strength: Three Minimalist Approaches to Overt Movement”. Linguistic Inquiry 30 (2): 197–217.
Manzini, Maria Rita, and Leonardo Maria Savoia. 2005. I dialetti italiani e romanci: morfosintassi generativa (Vol. 1). Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.
Nevins, Andrew. 2007. “The Representation of Third-person and its Consequences for Person-case Effects”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 273–313.
Nevins, Andrew. 2012. “Haplological Dissimilation at Distinct Stages of Exponence”. In The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence, ed. by Jochen Trommer, 84–116. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Noyer, R. 2001. “Clitic Sequences in Nunggubuyu and PF Convergence”. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 19 (4): 751–826.
Ordóñez, Francisco. 2000. The Clausal Structure of Spanish: a Comparative Perspective. New York: Garland.
Ormazabal, Javier, and Juan Romero. 2013. “Object Clitics, Agreement and Dialectal Variation”. International Journal of Latin and Romance Linguistics 25 (2): 301–344.
Larson, Richard K. 1988. “On the Double Object Construction”. Linguistic Inquiry 19 (3): 335–391.
Panagiotidis, Phoevos, and Stavroula Tsiplakou. 2006. “An A-binding Asymmetry in Null Subject Languages and its Significance for Universal Grammar”. Linguistic Inquiry 37 (1): 167–177.
Perlmutter, David M. 1968. Deep and Surface Structure Constraints in Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
Preminger, Omer. 2014. Agreement and its Failures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Preminger, Omer. 2009. “Breaking Agreements: Distinguishing Agreement and Clitic Doubling by their Failures”. Linguistic Inquiry 40 (4): 619–666.
Torrego, Esther. 1995. “From Argumental to Non-argumental Pronouns: Spanish doubled reflexives”. Probus 7 (2): 221–241.
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Rezac, Milan
2024.
The rise and fall of a person-case constraint in Breton.
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 42:3
► pp. 1233 ff.
Faust, Noam
2023.
Avoidance of Unintended Repetition. In
The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Morphology,
► pp. 1 ff.
Fábregas, Antonio
2021.
SE in Spanish.
Borealis – An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 10:2
► pp. 1 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.